Before discussing Song of Solomon and Ecclesiastes we should ask our Christian friends as to why they have MORE than twenty-two books in their Old Testament. Protestants (39), Catholics and other Churches ALL have MORE than twenty-two books in their OT canons. WHY??? [1]
ONLY twenty-two books enjoyed “confidence”
Geza Vermes tells us, according to Josephus, “only twenty-two books enjoyed confidence , implying that only they were held to be authoritative or canonical and no other writing was worthy of trust (see Against Apion I:38).” [2]
In fact, “the figure twenty-two was commonly accepted by Jews – and not only by Josephus – as representing the number of books in the biblical canon.” [2]
***See the update appended at the bottom for the Christian explanation courtesy of brother Ken***
Jesus never sanctioned the Christian Old Testament
“…more than one Qumran scholar maintains that no proper canon of the Old Testament existed until some time after the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE” [3]
So, Christians who claim Jesus sanctioned the Old Testament canon are indeed noticeably far off the mark – that is to say they are WRONG as a “proper canon” of the OT only came about AFTER Jesus’ earthly ministry.
Rabbis Doubted Song of Solomon and Ecclesiastes in the 2nd century CE!!
Some rabbis doubted the authority of these two books for internal reasons – in the case of the Song of Solomon it – the language was deemed unacceptable by the rabbis:
“…in the early second century CE questions were raised in rabbinic circles about the canonicity of the Song of Solomon (too erotic for the liking of some rabbis) and Ecclesiastes (because of the apparent doubts expressed in it regarding God)…” [3]
It gets one wondering:
"'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely? (NIV Jeremiah 8:8)
Conclusion
We see further problems the Christian evangelical community have to contemplate upon. Can Christians really claim their Old Testament is “inspired” despite the above information and the inter-church variation with regards to the OT canon – whilst remaining intellectually honest? I do not believe so.
UPDATE: A sincere Christian has offered an explanation with regards to Josephus' 22 book canon:
Yahya,
The 22 books of the Jews that Josephus mentions are the same as the 39 in the Protestant canon of the OT.
Ruth was appended to Judges.
Lamentations was appended to Jeremiah
the 12 minor prophets were considered "one scroll".
1 & 2 Samuel were one book, Samuel.
1 & 2 Kings were one book, Kings.
1 & 2 Chronicles were one book, Chronicles.
And Ezra and Nehemiah were one book.
Later in history, the Christians separated some of the books into parts 1-2 and the one scroll of the Twelve into 12 separate books, etc.
So, the 39 of Protestant bibles are the same as the Jewish Canon, in fact Protestants have stronger evidence than Roman Catholics on the canon of the OT, because of this.
The Jews did not accept the Apocrypha books that were written between Malachi and when John the Baptist came.
The Full quote of Against Apion 1:8 by Josephus, and he shows the books written from the 5 books of the Law of Moses, through the Prophets and to the time of Artaxerxes ( Esther(Xerxes), Ezra-Nehemiah, Malachi, Chronicles, Haggai, and Zechariah. (the period of the Persians - from Cyrus to Darius the Persian to Xerxes to Artaxerxes.)
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/josephus/works/files/apion-1.htm
Romans 3:2 - the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.
Malachi (and Chronicles) were the last written OT inspired Scriptures.
Luke quotes from Malachi 4:5-6 in Luke 1:17 to show that revelation stopped in Malachi (the time of Artaxerxes, in Persia, referenced in Against Apion 1:8 ( or in other versions 1:38-41) see
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/josephus/works/files/apion-1.htm
Luke quoting from Malachi shows the gap, that the books written in between (Apocrypha - Maccabees, etc.) were not inspired God-breathed revelation.
The 22 books that Josephus mentions are the same as the TaNakh (Law, Prophets, Writings) as in Luke 24:44.
Jesus
Josephus
Jews
and Jerome, the translator of the Vulgate around 400 AD
All affirm that same canon of the OT that protestants have today.
See Roger Beckwith, The OT Canon of the NT Church.
http://www.amazon.com/Testament-Canon-Church-Background-Judaism/dp/0802836178
Also, William Webster's articles are very good.
http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/apocryphaintroduction.html
Related:
Dr Jerald Dirks: Which Bible?
Sexism – a reason to change the Bible?
Feedback: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk
[1] OT Protestant Bible is 39 books whilst the Roman Catholics add a number of books to this as well as additions to the book of Daniel and the book of Esther. Greek Orthodox add EVEN MORE than the Roman Catholics; they have a 151st Psalm rather than ending with 150. They have additions to the book of Jeremiah and add 3rd and 4th Maccabees amongst others. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church has a canon of 46 books in their Old Testament. [Refer to the notes from Dr Jerald Dirks’ lecture Which Bible?]
[2] The Story of the Scrolls, Geza Vermes, Penguin Books, 2010, p 101
[3] The Story of the Scrolls, Geza Vermes, Penguin Books, 2010, p 100
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
41 comments:
Ecclesiastes 1:8 All this monotony is tiresome; no one can bear to describe it: The eye is never satisfied with seeing, nor is the ear ever content with hearing.
Ecclesiastes 9:3 yea, the heart of the sons of men is filled with evil, and madness is in their heart during their life, and after that they go to the dead.
CanonicityBoth Judaism and Christianity accept Ecclesiastes as canonical. However, in the first century AD, literal interpretation of the work led to debate over whether it was to be included in the Jewish canon.[21] The House of Hillel and the House of Shammai debated its inclusion, with the Hillel school arguing for it.[22] Its inclusion was decided when Eleazar ben Azariah was made head of the assembly.
Based on the contents of the majority of the book, it has perplexed scholars as to why Ecclesiastes was included in the canon of the Hebrew Bible. While there is no hypothesis that is unanimously supported by scholarship, there have been many suggestions offered. One idea is that association with Solomon was lent enough credibility to the book that it was canonized. However, “the difficulty with this justification…is clear: similar pseudonymous attributions in other texts-texts that were more orthodox than Ecclesiastes-proved to be insufficient reason for those texts to be accepted as canonical.” [23] Another prominent explanation for the canonical status of Ecclesiastes is that the final words redeem the entire book. This view is supported by the discussions at Jamnia, and Rabbi Akiba’s utterances there, “Why did they not withdraw it? Because the beginning and the end of it consist of words of the law” (b. Sabb. 30b)[24] This hypothesis though also has flaws, because of the lack of canonical status for other books that more consistently interpret the laws of Judaism in an orthodox manner.
Yahya,
Is it possible that you still don’t understand the process by which God revels his word to his people?
The fact that some books took longer to gain universal acceptance is not evidence the of weakness of God’s method of provision it’s evidence of it’s strength.
No group of men decided on what would be in the cannon instead the Holy Spirit reveals the scriptures to the people of God. This was the case before Christ and is still the case today.
If there were some sort of authoritative list of books that Christians or Jews accepted because it was approved by the powers that would mean that we were in the same predicament that Islam was in basing or faith on the testimony of the athourities instead of God.
I realize that a supernatural witness to believers is foreign to a someone so accustomed to putting their faith in the governing authorities to decide such things but it’s just the sort of thing one would expect if Christianity were true.
Please take the time to understand what Christian’s believe about how we got the Bible. It would make dialogue easier
Peace
I sense more embarassment coming Yahya's way for yet more blunders and shoddy scholarship.
Yahya Snow
It gets one wondering when Muslims shouting allahuakbar follow their holy book to decapitate, terrorize, and kill non Muslims, while the western Muslim world idly sits by and declares "it is not Islam":
“They offer only superficial help for the hurt my dear people have suffered. They say, "Everything will be all right!" But everything is not all right!
Are they ashamed because they have done such disgusting things? No, they are not at all ashamed! They do not even know how to blush!”
Jeremiah 8:11-12
@anon
"embarassment" for referencing Vermes and Dirks. Oh OK.
You tell me why you believe in a 39 book canon whilst Catholics and other churches differ...
You tell me why a 22 book OT is mentioned by Josephus. I mean, you just can't go around adding books to the OT at an unauthorised say-so.
@Fifth Monarchy Man wrote:
No group of men decided on what would be in the cannon instead the Holy Spirit reveals the scriptures to the people of God. This was the case before Christ and is still the case today.
Me: Have you viewed the Holy Spirit section on this blog. It proves the Holy Spirit is NOT guiding folk in the Bible.
Look, you believe Jesus was god-incarnate and a Prophet, why is it that he never sanctioned the OT you have. Why would the "2nd person of the trinity" leave it in a confused state and an incomplete state? You have a mess now, Catholics, Ethiopian Church, Protestants and the Josephus (and his Jewish contemporaries) are all at loggerheads.
Do you not believe God is NOT the author of confusion? If I was Dave Wood I would call that incompetent. Dave Wood would call it an incompetent god.
However, I'm not as crude as Dave.
You also wrote:
I realize that a supernatural witness to believers is foreign to a someone so accustomed to putting their faith in the governing authorities to decide such things but it’s just the sort of thing one would expect if Christianity were true.If there were some sort of authoritative list of books that Christians or Jews accepted because it was approved by the powers that would mean that we were in the same predicament that Islam was in basing or faith on the testimony of the athourities instead of God.
Me: Again, "supernatural witness" with regards to the Holy Spirit in the bible has been disproven - see the relevant section on this blog.
As for the authority of men? Are you for real? Paul was a man, so were the Gospel writers and the church fathers!
We KNOW the Holy Spirit was not guiding them in the bible - see the relevant section on this blog.
In Islam it is not a case of putting trust in the authority of men as the Quran was revealed to the Prophet of God. We trust the Prophet of God.
A further note on trusting men, you are now in the hands of scribes as hey transmitted your books - we have seen theywere dishonest - forgeries were not uncommon.
So you now have a book which is suspected to contain forgeries - the New Testament - specifically the Gospels. In addition, with regards to the author of John (whomever he/they were) thereis further distrust as it appears this author/s was fabricating things - either that or the lying hands of the scribes got hold of it.
So you see the problematic nature of this book...
Like I say, if Dave was here, he would call it incompetent.
I'm telling you the reason why you are in such a situation is due to the fact people did not consider these books "inspired" initially. Even the authors do not give indication of inspiration!
@ the other anon,
Wh talking about terrorism. Terrorists are isolated groups/individuals who do not represent Muslims.
Do you want me to claim Shirley Phelps Roper represents you whilst she is hounding mourners graveside?
Be fair, drop the stereotypes.Please do this, otherwise communication is not effective.
Thanks
Peace
Iron sharpens iron as one man sharpens another.
Yahya,
The 22 books of the Jews that Josephus mentions are the same as the 39 in the Protestant canon of the OT.
Ruth was appended to Judges.
Lamentations was appended to Jeremiah
the 12 minor prophets were considered "one scroll".
1 & 2 Samuel were one book, Samuel.
1 & 2 Kings were one book, Kings.
1 & 2 Chronicles were one book, Chronicles.
And Ezra and Nehemiah were one book.
Later in history, the Christians separated some of the books into parts 1-2 and the one scroll of the Twelve into 12 separate books, etc.
So, the 39 of Protestant bibles are the same as the Jewish Canon, in fact Protestants have stronger evidence than Roman Catholics on the canon of the OT, because of this.
The Jews did not accept the Apocrypha books that were written between Malachi and when John the Baptist came.
The Full quote of Against Apion 1:8 by Josephus, and he shows the books written from the 5 books of the Law of Moses, through the Prophets and to the time of Artaxerxes ( Esther(Xerxes), Ezra-Nehemiah, Malachi, Chronicles, Haggai, and Zechariah. (the period of the Persians - from Cyrus to Darius the Persian to Xerxes to Artaxerxes.)
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/josephus/works/files/apion-1.htm
Romans 3:2 - the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.
Malachi (and Chronicles) were the last written OT inspired Scriptures.
Luke quotes from Malachi 4:5-6 in Luke 1:17 to show that revelation stopped in Malachi (the time of Artaxerxes, in Persia, referenced in Against Apion 1:8 ( or in other versions 1:38-41) see
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/josephus/works/files/apion-1.htm
Luke quoting from Malachi shows the gap, that the books written in between (Apocrypha - Maccabees, etc.) were not inspired God-breathed revelation.
The 22 books that Josephus mentions are the same as the TaNakh (Law, Prophets, Writings) as in Luke 24:44.
Jesus
Josephus
Jews
and Jerome, the translator of the Vulgate around 400 AD
All affirm that same canon of the OT that protestants have today.
See Roger Beckwith, The OT Canon of the NT Church.
http://www.amazon.com/Testament-Canon-Church-Background-Judaism/dp/0802836178
Also, William Webster's articles are very good.
http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/apocryphaintroduction.html
The quotes from Gerza Vermes (except the last one) prove that the Protestant Canon is the same as the Jewish canon, and exclude the Roman Catholic canon which includes other books that are not inspired, nor prophetic. Maccabees (one of the Apocrypha books) even admits that it is not prophetic and that prophesy ceased with Malachi.
Even Gregory the Great, bishop of Rome in 601 AD, wrote that the Apocrypha books were not inspired Scripture, as did Cardinal Cajatan, around the 1520s (investigated and oppossed Luther, as a Papal legate)
The RC church only in 1545-1563 at the Council of Trent dogmatically proclaimed that the Apocrypha books were Scripture. (As a reaction against the Protestants, who agreed with the Jewish Canon.)
Jesus affirmed the same canon in Luke 24:44. The three parts were the TaNakh. T = Torah; N = Nabi'im (Prophets), Kh = Ketovim (similar to the Arabic, "Kitab"(book), writings)
On the last quote from Vermes about the Apocrypha,
Yes, some Rabbis doubted Song of Solomon and Ecclesiastes, but they were already established as Scripture long before, and they won the day in the later debates. That some doubted them does not prove anything.
Jesus also affirmed the OT canon in Luke 11:51 - from the blood of Abel (Genesis) to the blood of Zachariah the priest , who was killed between the altar and house of God" (see 2 Chronicles 24) - Chronicles was the last book in the Khetovim (writings section).
Malachi was last in the prophets section, but both were written about the same time 450-430 BC. Luke 1:17 quoting Malachi 4:5-6
Thanks, ken. You beat me to it. Another example of poor scholarship and bad reasoning on Yahya's part. Jews and Protestants have the same OT canon and muslims reject ALL of the books. If David was here, he would say Yahya is an incompetent apologist following an incompetent god.
how to destroy a fristian apologist
?
http://the-anointed-one.com/divorce11.html
doug krueger on errancy list told me that he is happy to kick james patrick holdings ass again .
according to the torah was the messiah supposed to be sinless?
http://messiahtruth.yuku.com/topic/3535/Yet-another-challenge-to-Christians?page=1
i'm begining to think that christianity only survives because it fiddles with the texts and misinterprets what it doesn't understand. the religon is a big mistranslation.
@Yahya Snow
Thank you again for proving the Quran is un inspired. Because by your logic it can't be, since there are some, even early Muslim witnesses that testify that the first surah of your quran was not revealed by Mohamed so there for should not be in the quran. You can't just go adding surahs to the quran man.
THUMEPTY THUMP THUMP
Yahya
What I find funny, is that Muslim bend over backwards to find your prophet in the bible, and then turn around and attack that very same bible. The quran itself testifies to the validity of the Jewish and Christian scriptures, even telling both Jews and Christians to follow it. And if they don't they are no better then those who disbelieve.
Muslim claim over and over again that the Song of Song is Bible porn, but then find their prophet in what they call bible porn. They have to invent a new Hebrew word in order to do this, butcher the text, ignore the fact that the word in question is a adjective, describing a person. I love the explination on this "Its plural so there for it is talking about respect" what nonsense. But hey none of that matters.
You even put up some lame post that Mohamed was in the Song of Songs, now your saying it is not canonical LOL. Oh the desperation.
Some of the arguments I have heard for Mohamed being in the bible are as follows.
There is mention of someone riding a camel. Mohamed rode a camel so this must be about Mohamed.
"A prophet like you"... Mosses had a beard, Mohamed had a beard, so this must be about Mohamed.
I could continue on this but I think everyone gets the idea.
@Yahya Snow
Can you please explain to us Surah 5:46-47.
"And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah."
The quran clearly says that Jesus confirms the Law, and that he was sent the gospel, therein was guidance and light, a guidance and an admonition to those who fear allah.
Then verse 47.
YUSUFALI: Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel.
Clearly the Christians in Mohamed's day are being told to judge by the Gospel and if they don't then they are no better then those who rebel.
So splain this Lucy, splain please.
Ken,
Thanks for the time and attempt at reasonable discussion. Fair play to you.
Earlier today, I was sifting through the Cambridge Encyclopaedia of the Bible and the inference I received from the relevant portion was indeed there could be some significance to this – Josephus’ 22 book canon.
I would like to further add, Vermes does
There is a discussion on the canonicity of the OT at Columbia uni’s site. The problem with that discussion, for you the evangelical – if you maintain the canon was not closed prior to Jesus, is the problem of confusion. Would God author such confusion? Why is it that the Jews had no defined canon until very late on? Surely, the Jews SHOULD have known their canon as they had numerous Prophets sent to them – are you saying the Prophets did not know either?
The thought of an expanding, both content wise and book wise, of the OT just gives more credence to the four source theory – J, E, P, D. Now, can you honestly say the priestly material is inspired?
Why is it that some rabbis felt free and compelled to question the canonicity of SOS and Ecceleistes?
“We have arrived at an awkward position. The Jewish canon seems not to have been closed, and Christians relied on the decidedly larger but somewhat uncertain canon of the LXX -- until the time of Jerome when at which time many felt that the Jewish canon was more worthy of attention. One is left with a canon that remained uncertain until a very late period consisting of two parts. A list of books which all were certain about and a list of several more that had an uncertain status. Some regarded the deuteros as being merely apocryphal or non-canonical (following Jerome's preface), but others regarded as Scripture (following Augustine or Origen) or perhaps as quasi-Scripture. For this reason I find the claim that Protestants removed books from Scripture to be roughly as exaggerated as the claim that Catholics added the books at the Council of Trent. The truth, it seems, was that an ambiguity truly existed which was very difficult to resolve.”
From - http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/canon.htm
PS Catholics would not give up their canon (or should I say their deuterocanonical material) without a fight. So, passing their extra material off as apocrypha is too simplistic – they can tell you that – in fact it is misleading!
You do realise their canon – the Catholic canon – was recognised in the council of Carthage and before that the Synod of Hyppo (both in the late fourth century.
Ken, I’m not to sure if you have viewed the material on the Holy Spirit (proving the Holy Spirit is not guiding you in the bible, see the relevant section on this blog)but surely you must be a little concerned here. Were these early Christians “led by the Spirit” or are you “led by the spirit” as you both arrive to differing outcomes. Of course, as shown on this blog we believe neither of you are led by the Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not guiding you or anybody else in the Bible – this can be evidenced through the divergent spectrum of views. We have not even discussed the Eastern Church. See the relevant Dr Jerald Dirks post on this blog for further information.
@Yahya Snow
First I think others have done a good job of refuting you on the number of books in the Cannon of the Tanak.
However i find this statement of yours to show some real ignorance.
"Look, you believe Jesus was god-incarnate and a Prophet, why is it that he never sanctioned the OT you have. Why would the "2nd person of the trinity"
First Jesus quotes from the law, the prophets, the writings. I would say this is a "CONFIRMATION" second the Holy Spirit is NOT I repeat NOT the 2nd Person in the Trinity.
Since Muslims believe that Jesus is a Prophet and a Messiah, then how come he never "sanctioned" the Quran you have? Since he never quoted from the Quran and never said "RECITE" instead he said you have heard, IT IS WRITTEN.
@ the anonymous who wrote: Thanks, ken. You beat me to it. Another example of poor scholarship and bad reasoning on Yahya's part. Jews and Protestants have the same OT canon and muslims reject ALL of the books. If David was here, he would say Yahya is an incompetent apologist following an incompetent god.
Me: Please up your level of scholarship and thought. If you don't want to contribute to the discussion then please refrain from such insults.
I also find it interesting to note you are pre-empting Dave, Dave is a proven liar who googles hoaxes and presents them as fact. Incompetent and deceitful? Yes.
Your surname is not "Shamoun", or is it?
But hey, whatever floats your boat - insult all you like - you only reveal what's in your heart.
And you have the audacity to claim you are led by the Holy Spirit.
Iron shaprens iron as one man sharpens another.
Think about it and come back better for it...
@Yahya Snow
Just read your response to Ken, all you did was repeat a expanded version of your same old argument. Yes there were rabbi's later disputed SOS, and EC, however as Ken pointed out these were already established as scripture and they one the day in the later argument.
You did not address the errors that you put forth that Ken completely refuted. Of which being the Book of Chronically, Samuel, Kings are all one book in the Jewish scripture. Also books are appended to other books etc...
So your argument that the Jews have 22 books and the protestants have 39 is just wrong.
I say until Yahya Snow admits he was wrong on that, changes his post, and apologizes for his error we have nothing more to do with the snowman.
What do you all say?
@ Ken (and Radical Moderate)
You wrote, concerning Jesus and the OT: Jesus also affirmed the OT canon in Luke 11:51 - from the blood of Abel (Genesis) to the blood of Zachariah the priest , who was killed between the altar and house of God" (see 2 Chronicles 24) - Chronicles was the last book in the Khetovim (writings section).
Malachi was last in the prophets section, but both were written about the same time 450-430 BC. Luke 1:17 quoting Malachi 4:5-6
Me: I have already had this discussion with one of your co-religionists. I stated Jesus never sanctioned the OT - I still maintain this assertion - he/she came back with something similar to yourself and RM, that of Jesus quoting from it.
In fact, Ken brings something new. Ken you do realise that is NOT the context of Jesus' saying in Luke 11:51. That generation willbe responsible for all the bloodshed mentioned - it does not mean he is confirming the OT!
Your far-fetched claim only serves to highlight the fact Jesus never sanctioned the OT you have in your hands today.
Go bakc and look into that for yourself and think deeply about it. Jesus quotes a paltry amount of the OT - that is NOT IN ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION a confirmation/sacntioning of the OT.
I quote passages from the NT/OT all the time - does that mean I am sanctioning all the OT and NT.
The fact remains, you do not have Jesus confirming a list concerning the canon of the OT (the NT came about AFTER Jesus - thus Jesus in no way shape or form ever saw a shred of the NT, nevermind sanctioned it), nor do you have Jesus quoting from each book or extensive passages.
Peace
Iron sharpens iron as one man sharpens another
Ken,
I shall check your link and get back to you on the issue of Josephus.
Thanks and yes, if I feel you are presenting stronger evidence concerning the issue of 22 books then I shall let you know.
Thanks
BUT please do consider the fact Jesus never sanctioned the OT (and NT), consider the questioning of SOS and Ecc.
Please do consider the confused state of the OT canon.
Iron sharpens iron as one man sharpens another
@Yahay Snow
You said...
"Your saying they are incorporated as one. I'm not satsified."
Wow you really dug deep on that one. Put a lot of thought into that response LOL
@the anonymous who just offered a load of insults and confrontation
Sir stop it. Grow up. You are simply a cheer leader for Shamoun and Wood.
I know I have taken apart your two pals but give me a break.They would not have been taken to task if they had been honest and had the ability to recant. You believe they are led by the Spirit - such absurdities!
Why is it that the evenagelical brigade on the internet is the most insecure and mean spirited?
And no we are not doing "taqiyah". Learn what that is after you apologise for such outrage.
Your comment has been removed.
If you do decide to come back...pleas come back with a better approach like that of Ken's!
Iron sharpens iron as one man shapens another
@Ken,
Check the update, I have appended your explanation to the post. the title has been altered as well.
I appreciate the sincere way in which you present your side.
Peace
Iron sharpens iron as one man sharpens another
Snowman said...
"I know I have taken apart your two pals but give me a break."
Someone is off his med's. When where did that happen?
@Yaha Snow
You said.
"I stated Jesus never sanctioned the OT "
So Jesus quotes from the OT, from the Law, the prophets and the writings. He quotes it as authoritive. But he never sanctioned it? How do you come up with that?
anonymous,
Go to the relevant Shamoun/Wood section for the answer.
Peace
@ Radical Moderate
You wrote: So Jesus quotes from the OT, from the Law, the prophets and the writings. He quotes it as authoritive. But he never sanctioned it? How do you come up with that?
Me: If I quote from the OT, am I sanctioning it all? No.
The same applies to Jesus. Simple.
My question to you, which OT do you believe Jesus "sanctioned" by quoting from it? The Catholic OT, the Eastern Church's OT or your OT or a different OT?
And WHY?
Serious questions, can you answer. Please do not bring anonymous over here to insult me. I'm asking you a serious question. Just like I did concerning Jospehus but our anonymous pal decides to turn it into a bashing session.
Please answer...
I look forward to your answers.
I bid you all good night
Me: If I quote from the OT, am I sanctioning it all? No.
First not the same thing, Jesus is quoting it as authoritive do you quote the OT as authoritive?
@Yahya Snow said...
"My question to you, which OT do you believe Jesus "sanctioned" by quoting from it? The Catholic OT, the Eastern Church's OT or your OT or a different OT?"
Jesus is quoting from the Jewish Tanak, which is the Catholic OT, the Eastern OT, and the Protestant OLD.
Can you show me in any of these "OT" as you call them, were there is one that does not contain lets say all 5 books of Mosses? IS anyone of these OT missing the book of Psalms, the books of the prophets, the books of kings, Chronicals, Samuel etc...?
Show me any OT that is missing any of the 39 books of the protestant OT, which as Ken has pointed out are the same 22 books of the Jewish OT.
@Yahya
Even your allah said the Torah and Gosple are authortive, and sanctioned. How come you disagree with allah and mohamed.
Yahya wrote:
Thanks for the time and attempt at reasonable discussion. Fair play to you.
Thank you, Yahyah. Thanks for adding the material I posted to your article. That was good and fair also.
Earlier today, I was sifting through the Cambridge Encyclopaedia of the Bible and the inference I received from the relevant portion was indeed there could be some significance to this – Josephus’ 22 book canon.
I would like to further add, Vermes does
There is a discussion on the canonicity of the OT at Columbia uni’s site. The problem with that discussion, for you the evangelical – if you maintain the canon was not closed prior to Jesus, is the problem of confusion.
Are you talking about their own TaNaKh being closed or are you talking about the addition of the NT ? What exactly is confusing? Maccabees and other books of the Apocrypha (What the Roman Catholic Church calls “deuteron-canonical books”) confess that they are not prophets and not prophetic, so they were never considered inspired.
Would God author such confusion? Why is it that the Jews had no defined canon until very late on?
I don’t fully understand what you mean by “confusion”. Please clarify.
Luke 11:50-51 shows that is was closed, “all the prophets” in verse 50. (Jesus’ opinion in AD 30-33; Luke written around 60 AD) Roger Beckwith shows the Rabbis who are quoted the same 22 books that Josephus mentions are “laid up in the temple”. Luke 24:44 shows that Jesus also understood the 3 parts of the OT, the TaNakh and so, Jesus did affirm all of the OT that Protestant / Evangelicals also affirm. So, this is not late, it is at the time of Jesus. But they also knew this in 200 BC, as indicated in the books of Sirach and Maccabees.
. . .
The thought of an expanding, both content wise and book wise, of the OT just gives more credence to the four source theory – J, E, P, D. Now, can you honestly say the priestly material is inspired?
I don’t believe the J, E, D, P theory has any validity whatsoever. It is a theory based on an anti – supernaturalistic presupposition. Those scholars that started that – Julius Welhousen and Graff – they did not believe God reveals Himself in revelation and books and did not believe that God does miracles. They were unbelievers.
See this article that refutes the J, E, D, P theory completely. (by Colin Smith)
http://vintage.aomin.org/JEDP.html
continued -
Yahya wrote:
Why is it that some rabbis felt free and compelled to question the canonicity of SOS and Ecceleistes?
People are free to question things and do question things all the time. But their position lost and was a minority. There are many more Rabbis that affirmed those books and they even had a rule that no single unmarried man under 30 should read SOS – because of its romantic and sensual language of celebration of sexual love within marriage.
Ecclesiastes is alluded to in Romans 1:18-32 (Ecclesiastes 9:3 – hearts of men are full of evil and madness is in their hearts”) and The Vanity of Vainities (emptiness, purposelessness without God) theme is probably alluded to in Romans 1:18-32 and Romans 8:20.
“We have arrived at an awkward position. The Jewish canon seems not to have been closed, and Christians relied on the decidedly larger but somewhat uncertain canon of the LXX -- until the time of Jerome when at which time many felt that the Jewish canon was more worthy of attention. One is left with a canon that remained uncertain until a very late period consisting of two parts. A list of books which all were certain about and a list of several more that had an uncertain status. Some regarded the deuteros as being merely apocryphal or non-canonical (following Jerome's preface), but others regarded as Scripture (following Augustine or Origen) or perhaps as quasi-Scripture. For this reason I find the claim that Protestants removed books from Scripture to be roughly as exaggerated as the claim that Catholics added the books at the Council of Trent. The truth, it seems, was that an ambiguity truly existed which was very difficult to resolve.”
From - http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/canon.htm
PS Catholics would not give up their canon (or should I say their deuterocanonical material) without a fight. So, passing their extra material off as apocrypha is too simplistic – they can tell you that – in fact it is misleading!
There is a difference between “The Apocrypha” and “Apocryphal” (description, adjective of other books, even beyond the Apocrypha. True, Roman Catholics will argue that those books are also “inspired”; and “secondarily admitted into the canon”.
You do realise their canon – the Catholic canon – was recognised in the council of Carthage and before that the Synod of Hyppo (both in the late fourth century.
Yes, I knew that; those two councils were local provincial councils, influenced by Augustine. Augustine wrote that they were “admitted into the canon because of the wonderful testimony of the martyrs” ( the Jews who died in battle – the Maccabean revolts and wars against the Greeks – and Antiochus Epiphanes, when he offered a pig on the altar to Zeus.
Augustine admitted he did not know Hebrew; yet Jerome did, and Jerome investigated the Jewish canon issue in Palestine and found that the Hebrew was the same 22 books that Josephus, the Rabbis, Jesus (Luke 11:50-51; 24:44) affirmed. Augustine was great on many things, but wrong on that issue. Cardinal Cajatan (1520s) in his commentary on this issue wrote basically, “everything is to be reduced to the opinion of Jerome (400 AD) on the issue of the OT canon.”
Yahya,
I looked at your post on the issue of the Holy Spirit guiding Christians and I listened and watched the video you made, referencing Dr. James White's video about the interpretation of 2 Cor. 4:4 and "the god of this age" as Satan vs. "Theos" as God, etc.
Well, sincere Christians disagree with each other over interpretations of some difficult passages.
If you read the book of Job, though, God in His Sovereignty had to take His hand of protection off of Job in order for Satan to get to Job. Read Job chapters 1-2. But Satan did the actual evil deeds to Job and his family. So, either way, if "the god of this age" is Satan, it was the true God who allows Satan to blind people.
Job 42:10-11
10 And the LORD restored the fortunes of Job, when he had prayed for his friends. And the LORD gave Job twice as much as he had before.
11 Then came to him all his brothers and sisters and all who had known him before, and ate bread with him in his house. And they showed him sympathy and comforted him for all the evil [calamity and bad things that God allowed] that the LORD had brought upon him. And each of them gave him a piece of money and a ring of gold."
This shows that God ultimately allowed the bad things to happen, but Satan actually did the bad things. God is not a sinner; but Satan is a sinner.
So, Christians can disagree over interpretations.
I Corinthians 11:19 "It is necessary that heresies exist among you, in order that it may be shown who is approved."
The promise of the Holy Spirit guiding into all the truth in John chapters 14 and 16 is primarily about the Spirit guiding the disciples into the rest of the truth of the revelation that will become the written inspired Scriptures. In that context, Jesus is talking to the eleven disciples. ( Matthew, Peter gets Mark to write for him; John, etc. ) Jesus says, I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. John 16:12. But when the Spirit comes, He will lead you into all the truth. (ie, lead them to write the rest of the Truth of the Nt canon - Gospels and letters, etc.
It is not primarily about our subjective guidance today; although it certainly applies to us and we need to submit to the Holy Spirit, but it is possible for some Christians to get some interpretations wrong.
Yahya said:
Your far-fetched claim only serves to highlight the fact Jesus never sanctioned the OT you have in your hands today.
I say,
Do you ever get tired of making demands of the Prophets before you will accept the word of God?
You need to understand that you are not in charge. You have no right to demand that God’s messengers do this or that.
I’d hate to have to say to Allah on judgment day that the reason that I rejected his scripture was because I was not satisfied with Jesus’ sanctioning of it.
As a creature It’s your duty to believe the message of God’s Prophets period....no excuses
Yahya said:
If I quote from the OT, am I sanctioning it all?
I say:
If you were a Jew living in first century Palestine who never gave any hint that the scriptures were corrupted and who commended the study of them …….yes
Simple
It looks like my last post is lost in cyber space.
I don’t feel like going to all the effort to reconstruct and repost it so I guess that will be all for now
peace
Ken, Fith, Anon, and others what Yahay and other Muslims don't realize when they attack the Bible they attack their Quran.
Yahya's argument so far seems to be the following.
1. Jesus never said "These are the books of the Old Tesement you should follow" so therefore you do not know what the Old Testment is.
2. Since the number of books in the Protestant New Testemant differs from Catholic or orthdox Cannon, this means that the books are not inspired.
3. Since latter Rabbi's and even Christians argued over the amount of books in the Old and New Testament the books can not be inspired.
Now we have all given great explanations for this, however Yahya says that those arguments are "Not Satisfying"
What Yahay doesnt realize is that these same problems exist for his Quran.
First although the common Muslim tradition is that Mohamed recited the quran in the final order with the exact number of Suraha's that exist today, the evidence says other wise.
There are a few early reciters even ones hand picked by Mohamed who had a different number of Surahas then Uthamanic Revision.
At least one aiya was not in the "orginal" quran of Hafsa.
Muslims to this day debate over whether the first Surah of the Quran is authentic and there is even Muslims who claim the last two aiya's of Surah 9 are not authentic.
The Quran from the begging was a controlled text. There was a single governing authority that determined what Surrah's what Aiya and order they should take. But even with that controlled authority there were and still are disputes over the contents and order of the quran.
Now Yahay and other Muslims will put forth what they believe are good explinations. But do they realy satisfy any of us. Are any of them even plausible.
What Yahya and other Muslims don't get is that they have a MONO prophet and a MONO Book who's codex was developed over 23 years. There were a few attempts to canonize the text with it's final form only coming about after a revision.
Now what we Christians and even the jews have is different. We do not have a MONO BOOK, or a MONO PROPHET. We have a series of Prophets and books all converging over a period of a thousand years or so.
These books converge and convey the message of God and the relationship he has with his people. It is truly a amazing collection of works and a great testimony to God's amazing sovereignty.
@Yahya Snow
I'm still waiting for you to give us a guided tour of the Gay scene in Dearborn MI.
get facebook likes
buy facebook likes
how to get facebook likes
install a good anti virus and run it in safe mode
get facebook likes get facebook likes how to get facebook likes buy facebook likes
how to get facebook likes [url=http://100fbfans.info]buy facebook likes[/url] buy facebook likes get facebook likes
Post a Comment